Questions for homosexuals - and those who approve of it - Follow up, #2

Here is another response1 (with my responses) to the 28 questions. I emailed him and asked for permission to reproduce his answers so I could respond to them. He did not ask for permission to reproduce my questions. But, since I'm trying to be above board, I wrote him and asked. Here is the response:

You have written permission to reproduce my responses, just so long as I retain written permission to repost your responses to my responses.================================

Well, he certainly has written permission (given here) to respond to this article. But, as you will see, if he responds to this, he needs to respond to the questions instead of being insulting and avoiding so many issues. Nevertheless, here is my response to his answers.

GENETIC HOMOSEXUALITY: If heterosexual behavior produces offspring and homosexual behavior does not, then how can it be said that homosexuals are born that way since their genetic tendencies would have died out long ago through natural selection?

Answer: "Well, considering the number of gay people who are born to 2 straight parents, I would think that you would not need for one of your parents to be homosexual in order for you to be born that way. There is such a thing as dormant genes. I have been slowly going bald since college and both of my parents have full heads of hair. I can assure you I haven’t been shaving my forehead or the back of my head".

Counter Response: This is not a response to the question and commits the fallacy of begging the question. Instead of answering, the person simply says that gay people are born to straight parents. It is an unsubstantiated assumption. Saying that there are dormant genes that occasionally surface misses the point. Whenever the recessive genes would surface, how would they be passed on if, as the question suggests, that homosexual behavior does not produce offspring. Saying that there are just recessive genes is saying that the genes are passed on. The answer misses the issue of the question.

GENETIC HOMOSEXUALITY: If sexual orientation is a genetic predisposition and the homosexual community wants cultural and social support since, as they say, "they are born that way", then shouldn't they also support "homophobia" since it could be legitimately argued that homophobes are born with heterosexual-orientation and possess a natural aversion to homosexuality?

Answer: "I don’t think people possess a “natural aversion” to homosexuality. I have a natural aversion to participating in gay sex, but that’s because I’m not gay. I don’t have a natural aversion to the existence of gays and lesbians though. I once was bigoted towards gays and lesbians but that was because I grew up being told that they were deviants and perverts. By this ridiculous and fallacious logic, we should support the KKK, because Klansmen are born Caucasian and “possess a natural aversion to African Americans?” Are you really this stupid?"

Counter Response: So in other words, people are born with a natural tendency for homosexuality, but are not born with the natural tendency against it. This is called special pleading where the same standard is not applied equally to both sides. Furthermore, he contradicts himself when he says he doesn't think people possess a natural aversion to homosexuality but he says he has a natural aversion to participate in gay sex. I suppose now he will differentiate between people who are homosexual and the active gay sex. That would be an interesting endeavor. He offers a irrelevant issue of supporting the KKK, missing the whole point. And then ends with an insult. I can't help but wonder if the person is genetically predisposed to be insulting. If he is not, perhaps this is what the open-mindedness of being pro-homosexual leads to.

GENETIC HOMOSEXUALITY: If heterosexual behavior produces offspring and homosexual behavior does not, then doesn't it make sense to say that homosexuality is a learned behavior since the implication is that pro-homosexual genes would have been wiped out generations ago?

Answer: "This is exactly the same question as number 1, just worded differently."

Counter Response: If it's the exact same question as number one, if it's worded differently, then how is it the exact same question? In other words, if it's worded differently it can't be the exact same question. This question deals with homosexuality as a learned behavior where question number one does not. So, it is a different question. Perhaps the critic would consider reading the questions over again a little more carefully.

GENETIC HOMOSEXUALITY: If this is not the case, can you please explain the mechanism by which 'homosexual genes' aid in survivability and are then passed on to descendants?

Answer: "I’m not a scientist and know relatively little about evolutionary biology, but a guess would be that this would be nature’s way of preventing overpopulation."

Counter Response: This is an interesting response. So what he is saying is that nature decides to remove people via homosexuality. This is an admission that homosexuality doesn't produce offspring which is what question one is about. So, in other words, homosexuality aids in survivability by reducing the number of people that survive....interesting logic.

GENETIC PEDOPHILIA: If genetic predisposition is used as a support for stating that homosexual behavior is morally okay (because they are born that way), then shouldn't pedophilia behavior also be considered morally okay since they claim they were born that way?

Answer: "Ummm…no *******. Little children are not old enough to understand all of the implications of getting involved in sexual activity and also are at an age where an adult is an authority figure who can easily sway them into doing something they aren’t entirely comfortable with. Taking advantage of someone sexually is never “morally okay.” The same case can’t be made by 2 people of legal age in a loving consensual relationship. "

Counter Response: First of all, the person responds with an insult. Second, his response would mean that genetic disposition is not the issue considering homosexuality and pedophilia. Instead, it is sufficiently mature consent. This would mean then that sexual tendency which is based upon genetics is not what determines moral right and wrong, but consent does. Okay, then this would undermine the moral "rightness" of being homosexual because someone is "born that way" which means this person could not use the excuse that it is okay to be homosexual because people are born that way.

GENETIC PEDOPHILIA: If pedophiles are morally wrong because they violate the wishes and will of the younger individuals, then at what age is a person too young to engage in sexual activity in accordance with his or her natural predisposition (i.e., being born that way)?

Answer: "The law says younger than 18. It's worked so far. If it ain’t broke don’t fix it."

Counter Response: So, moral right and wrong is affected by a birthday? The day before a person turns 18 sex sexual activity would be immoral (after all, the question is about its morality), but the day of the birthday it becomes morally good. This would mean that morality is legislated. Of course, this is problematic because if the law were to say that the age of 13 is the age of sexual consent, that would be morally good. Since when is morality dictated by the law?

CONSENT: In light of being born with a sexual orientation (like homosexuality, frotteurism2, voyeurism3), if pedophiles are morally wrong because they are acting out their sexual orientation upon minors who are not mature enough to consent, then what do you do when minors become mature enough to consent and also claim they are born wanting a sexual relationship with an older person?

Answer: "Mature enough by whose metric? I thought I was mature enough to do a lot of things when I was 16 years old, which in reality I shouldn’t have been doing. That’s the case for most 16 year olds. There are lots and lots of things minors are not allowed to do, at least not without the consent of their parents, sex is just one of those things. Besides that we are talking about homosexuality, not pedophilia, you are attempting to deflect the subject from the original topic by using a slippery slope argument. "

Counter Response: This does not answer the question which deals with acting out according to one's sexual orientation and its relationship to the consent of those mature enough to give such consent. The person's previous response (question 6) of saying that 18 is the legal age for moral rightness, and his response here are inconsistent. If he wants to say that 18 is when it suddenly becomes morally correct, then he should be consistent and say that maturity is irrelevant. Instead, it would have to do with the birthday.

CONSENT: If what is sexually permissible is what is based on consent then what do you do with adolescents who consent to having sex with much older people? Is it okay?

Answer: "No, but the burden of “not-okayness” most rests on the shoulders of the adult. The adolescent is a victim. "

Counter Response: This is shifting the issue to something else. The question deals with sexual permissiveness based on consent of the younger person, not the responsibility of the older person. Granted, older people are certainly responsible, but that isn't the question.

MORAL STANDARD: From where do homosexuals get their moral standard by which they can judge what is sexually right and wrong?

Answer: "If you are claiming that your particular interpretation of the Bible is the only correct way to get a moral standard by which you can judge what is sexually right and wrong and a basis for denying them equal marital rights, then we would have to invalidate the marriages of everyone in the country who does not practice your particular flavor of Christianity. Also the Bible says a lot of things about marriage. Usually its not between one man and one woman. In the case of Solomon, it was between one man and lots and lots and lots of women. The Bible is not and never was intended to be a sex manual."

Counter Response: This response is a complete failure. First of all, the original question is not dealing with the Bible or my "particular flavor of Christianity". It is as though he is answering a different question. Second, he doesn't answer it at all. The question is about where homosexuals obtain their moral standard regarding sexual right and wrong. Perhaps the question is too difficult for the person to answer. I would think that instead of offering a completely irrelevant response, the person would be better off ignoring it.

MORAL STANDARD SOCIETY: If homosexuals derive their standard of morality from society, then what justifies the idea that society is the proper place to obtain a standard of morality?

Answer: "Where someone derives their morality depends on the individual, but lots of things are legal that most people would consider immoral. Take lying for instance. As long as I am not under oath and its not part of a legally binding document, I can legally lie all I want. Rush Limbaugh is a perfect example how one can legally be a liar. Whether or not society considers something “moral” ideally isn’t how we determine something’s legality. It usually is determined by whether a behavior encroaches on someone else’s rights and marriage equality does not encroach upon anyone’s rights."

Counter Response: The question is not about deriving morality from individuality. It's is about deriving it from society. So, the person again fails to answer the question. Also, notice the red Herring, the irrelevant accusation he offers about Rush Limbaugh.

MORAL STANDARD SOCIETY: If homosexuals derive their standard of morality from society, then which society has the right moral system it contradicts another?

Answer: "This question is rendered moot by my answer to number 10."

Counter Response: His response to question 10 was a failure. Therefore, seeking to offer it as a proper response to this question is yet another failure.

MORAL STANDARD SOCIETY: If homosexuals derive their standard of morality from society, then are the morals derived from society obligatory to all members of society?

Answer: "What do you mean by that? No one is forcing you to have homosexual sex or attend a gay wedding, if that’s what you are insinuating."

Counter Response: The question is not an assertion. It is a "question". The question is when you ask something. The question does not assert that socially derived morals are obligatory for all members of society. The question asks if socially derived morals are obligatory for other members of society. He did not address this. The question is not that difficult to understand. But, in my opinion, it's too difficult for the person to answer-given his not-very-good-response.

MORAL STANDARD SOCIETY: If homosexuals derive their standard of morality from society, then what gives them the moral right to change society's morals when the majority condemns homosexuality as morally wrong?

Answer: "They aren’t forcing you to have gay sex. They aren’t forcing you to attend gay marriages. They aren’t forcing your church to perform a gay wedding. Your life will be completely unchanged. All that will change is they will have rights that they did not before. No one is asking you to like what they are doing or approve of it. Also increasingly, in greater numbers, people are beginning to not condemn homosexuality as morally wrong."

Counter Response: Again, this is not answering the question. It is not about forcing anybody to have the gay sex. The question deals with changing societies morals which is what the homosexual agenda obviously wants to do. What gives them the right to do this? Also, it is not about "rights". This person repeatedly fails to answer the questions and offers, instead, responses to something else. So, with a little bit of research I found this link: http://www.time4learning.com/readingpyramid/comprehension.htm. It is "Learning Reading Comprehension Skills Online". I hope it helps.

MORAL STANDARD PERSONAL: If homosexuals derive their standard of morality from themselves, then do they have the right to judge the morals of anyone else, including those who disagree with them?

Answer: "If someone is mistreating them on the basis of who they are, then yes. If I started sending death threats to your family because I didn’t like this “questionnare”, then you’d have the right to judge my morals in that particular case, because I’d be causing you fear and distress. There is some behavior that needs to be stopped because it hurts or intimidates others."

Counter Response: This also misses the point of the question which deals with deriving morality from one's self and how one justifies judging the morals of others who likewise derive morals from themselves. It is not based upon the standard of mistreating someone. That is another issue. I think the reading comprehension link in the previous question is really needed.

MORAL STANDARD PERSONAL: If homosexuals derive their standard of morality from themselves, then do they have the right to condemn those whom they label "homophobes" when they are just expressing their personal moral preference?

Counter Response: Again, the response misses the issue. The questions is not about harassing someone else. It is about deriving moral standards from one's self and condemning others. The problem with saying things like "harass, denigrate, mock," etc. is that these terms are too subjective. They are emotionally laden and do not properly respond to the question. His answer fails...again.

MORAL STANDARD PERSONAL: If homosexuals say that "homophobes" are wrong because they want to restrict homosexuals' rights and impose their values on them, then what gives the homosexuals the right to impose their sexual values on others?

Answer: "You are keeping them from marrying each other. That is you directly affecting their quality of life. You do not have to participate in or approve of homosexual sex, homosexual relationships or anything else related to homosexuality. They are imposing nothing upon you. "

Counter Response: So then, by his response, he is saying that homosexuals have the right to impose their sexual views on others because homosexuals are not being permitted to marry. This is an admission, then, that the homosexuals are trying to change the morals of society. Again, the question remains. What gives the homosexuals the moral right to impose their sexual views on others? And, to make this clear, the issue of marriage rights is different than the issue of imposing sexual mores on others.

MORAL STANDARD PERSONAL: If homosexuals derive their standard of morality from themselves, then do you have the right to try and change society to suite their own moral preferences?

Answer: "What gives you the right to try to insure that society suits *your* moral preferences? "

Counter Response: This is a complete failure to address the question...yet again. So, once more, please see http://www.time4learning.com/readingpyramid/comprehension.htm for "Learning Reading Comprehension Skills Online".

MORAL STANDARD PERSONAL: If homosexuals derive their standard of morality from themselves, and they also believe they have the right to try and change society to suite their own moral preferences, then how is that not arrogant?

Answer: "Again, they are only asking for rights, not imposing any beliefs on others or making an activity mandatory. They are not making you change your belief system. Forcing them into your morality is what is arrogant. "

Counter Response: The question deals with arrogance and the imposing of moral views on others when those moral views are based on personal preferences. Once again, the person fails to answer the question. Please see http://www.time4learning.com/readingpyramid/comprehension.htm for "Learning Reading Comprehension Skills Online".

CIVIL RIGHTS: If civil rights should be granted to homosexual because of their sexual orientation (i.e., sexual behavior), then shouldn't equal civil rights be granted to those of Alternate Sexual Orientations (ASO) such as pedophilia, incest, voyeurism, exhibitionism, sadism, fetishes, frotteurism, necrophilia, autoerotic asphyxiation, etc.? If not, why not?

Answer: "We’ve already discussed pedophilia to death. Incest usually results in people being born with severe birth defects. Voyeurism involves at least one party who doesn’t consent as does exhibitionism. Sadism is already legal as long as it is practiced safely. The same goes for most fetishes and autoerotic asphyxiation. Frotteurism and necrophilia also involve non-consenting parties. So everything you listed either isn’t illegal or involves a non-consenting party. Also sexual orientation is not the same thing as just being turned on by something in particular. "

Counter Response: We "discussed pedophilia to death"? We did? Is pedophilia now a "dead" issue? How do you discuss something to death? The issue, again, is not about legality. If it were, then homosexuality would have no basis for asserting its own legal rights when it exists in a society that says it's illegal. Nevertheless, the issue is about rights being based upon someone being born with a particular sexual orientation. Furthermore, the person is inadvertently undermining the idea of homosexual orientation by asserting that morality is not based on being born that way, but with other issues such as birth defects, consent, etc. If rights deal with how a person is born, then the issue of harming someone else would be irrelevant -- because it's based on birth orientation. If however, harming someone is what the issue is about, then it's not about being born with a certain orientation. You can't have it both ways. If, on the other hand, the person wants to say that it's a combination of the two, then we are on yet another slippery slope because when the morals of society change, along with this legislation, what was condemned now can be approved of later. This, of course, is problematic.

CIVIL RIGHTS: If civil rights should be granted to homosexuals based specifically on their sexual orientation (behavior), then shouldn't equal civil rights also be granted to heterosexuals based specifically on their sexual orientation (behavior)? If not, why not?

Answer: "Umm…that’s kind of the point. Heterosexuals have rights that homosexuals do not have. Are you really this stupid?"

Counter Response: Yet another insult. It's not about who has more or less rights. It's about whether or not civil rights should be granted to someone based specifically on their sexual behavior. Again, I recommend that the person please see http://www.time4learning.com/readingpyramid/comprehension.htm for "Learning Reading Comprehension Skills Online".

CIVIL RIGHTS: If equal civil rights should not be granted to people of Alternate Sexual Orientations (excluding homosexual behavior), then what is it about homosexuality that deserves special status protection where other sexual behaviors do not?

Answer: "See my answer to number 19."

Counter Response: See my response to 20.

CIVIL RIGHTS: If homosexuals are granted privileges due to civil unions, and domestic partnerships, shouldn't the same be offered to heterosexuals?

Answer: "HETEROSEXUALS ALREADY HAVE THOSE PRIVILEGES! We are granting homosexuals privileges that heterosexuals already have. What part of that is so hard to understand? Do you realize that you sound like a spoiled little child screaming “Mom, its not fair!” "

Counter Response: Actually, the original question is worded very well. Still, he accuses me when he says "Do you realize that you sound like a spoiled little child screaming “Mom, its not fair!”", when in actuality, that is what the homosexual community is saying. After all, they're saying it's not fair because they don't have the "same rights" that heterosexuals do. This person's responses are consistently one-sided, often miss the point, and are just plain wrong.

FAIRNESS: Shouldn't an equal amount of sexual-orientation-promotion be offered to people of Alternate Sexual Orientations (i.e., pedophilia, incest, necrophilia, autoerotic asphyxiation) such that they are also promoted in parades, schools, movies, sitcoms, magazines, schools, etc.? If not, why not?

Answer: "I’ve already been over and over the stuff about non-consensual sex. There are already parades celebrating things like BDSM and I’m pretty much positive that there are magazines on that topic as well. "

Counter Response: It's not about consent. Again, the question is not about consent. The question is about whether or not there should be a promotion of alternate sexual orientations just as there is about the pro-homosexual movement. Again, please see http://www.time4learning.com/readingpyramid/comprehension.htm for "Learning Reading Comprehension Skills Online".

FAIRNESS: Would you, if you are pro-homosexual in practice and/or ideology, promote and support heterosexual parades, heterosexual oriented TV, and overt heterosexual appreciation and promotions in school classrooms ' the same as is occurring with homosexuality? If not, why not?

Answer: "Are you also one of those idiots that asks why there isn’t a “White History Month?” Considering that most people are heterosexuals, I don’t think we need a heterosexual awareness parade. Pretty much all TV is heterosexual oriented, except for a very small handful of shows. "

Counter Response: Two things: Why does this person consistently use insults? Second, he needs to go to http://www.time4learning.com/readingpyramid/comprehension.htm for "Learning Reading Comprehension Skills Online" so he might better learn how to actually answer questions asked instead of responding to what is not asked.

FAIRNESS: If being intolerant of homosexuality is somehow wrong, then why are the homosexuals not wrong when they express their intolerance of those who disapprove of homosexuality?

Answer: "Because tolerating intolerance creates an atmosphere of intolerance. Tolerance cannot exist in the presence of intolerance. Silence in the presence of oppression is support of the oppressor. "

Counter Response: I love this, "because tolerating intolerance creates an atmosphere of intolerance. Tolerance cannot exist in the presence of intolerance." Good stuff. So, let me get this straight. We are to be intolerant about intolerance. This means that being intolerant is good...when it's being intolerant of intolerance. So, if I understand this properly, it's okay to be intolerant some of the time, intolerant other times, but we need to be intolerant about intolerance...when it's about homosexuality. I see........... He doesn't seem very tolerant.

FAIRNESS: Isn't it hypocritical to say that homosexuals want tolerance for everyone but at the same time they practice intolerance of the those who disagrees with their behavior?

Answer: "See my answers to 14, 15, and 25 "

Counter Response: See my responses to those as well.

FAIRNESS: If homosexuals want tolerance, then when they try and change the rest of society's views about homosexuality, aren't they demonstrating their intolerance of the majority position?

Answer: "See my answer to 26. "

Counter Response: See my response to that.

FAIRNESS: If you affirm that it is okay for homosexuals to show their intolerance for the majority view against homosexuality by trying to change the rest of society's view to conform to their own, then shouldn't it be okay for the majority to try and change the moral view of the homosexuals and have them conform to the majority?

Answer: "See my answers to 13, 16, and 18. Geez….I’m glad I’m going on vacation in a couple of days, where I will be mostly unable to read ****** like this. (This place will not lie dormant during my vacation though. Jarred will be guest posting while I’m gone and you still have a couple more posts from me before I leave.) "

Counter Response: See my responses to those questions. I'm glad he's going on vacation. Perhaps when he returns he might be rested enough to take the course on reading comprehension skills so that he might be able to better focus on the questions.